References: 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 SCR 353, 309 DLR (4th) 1, 245 CCC (3d) 1, 66 CR (6th) 1, 253 OAC 124
Links: Canlii
Coram: McLachlin CJ and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ
Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) Constitutional law – Charter of Rights – Arbitrary detention – Right to counsel – Encounter between accused and police going from general neighbourhood policing to situation where police effectively took control over accused and attempted to elicit incriminating information – Whether police conduct would cause a reasonable person in accused’s position to conclude that he or she was not free to go and had to comply with police demand – Whether accused arbitrarily detained – Whether accused’s right to counsel infringed – Meaning of ‘detention’ in ss. 9 and 10 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Constitutional law – Charter of Rights – Enforcement – Exclusion of evidence – Firearm discovered as result of accused’s statements taken in breach of his right against arbitrary detention and right to counsel – Firearm admitted into evidence at trial and accused convicted of five firearms offences – Whether admission of firearm bringing administration of justice into disrepute – Revised framework for determining whether evidence obtained in breach of constitutional rights must be excluded – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 24(2).
Criminal law – Firearms – Possession of firearm for purposes of weapons trafficking – Whether simple movement of firearm from one place to another without changing hands amounts to weapons trafficking – Meaning of ‘transfer’ of weapon for purposes of ss. 84, 99 and 100 of Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Ambrose -v- Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban, etc SC (Bailii, [2011] UKSC 43, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC, UKSC 2011/0101, 2011 SLT 1005, [2011] 1 WLR 2435)
(Scotland) The appellant had variously been convicted in reliance on evidence gathered at different stages before arrest, but in each case without being informed of any right to see a solicitor. The court was asked, as a devolution issue, at what . .